Monday, May 13, 2013

The Politics Behind The Immigration Reform Movement

The elected class is as dishonest as the day is long. Its
sole desire is to gain and hold its parasitic existence and sit at the
seats of power. Until you realize this, you will never break the bonds
of conventional wisdom and understand what’s going on behind the scenes.

To the average person, the political class can be a conundrum. How,
most people will ask, can a politician say during election time he is
for or against a particular thing or policy in an effort to gain
favorability among the electorate and then, once he’s elected, do an
about-face and say or do the exact opposite? The answer is very simple.
Politicians — with few exceptions — owe their existence to the moneyed
elites. You cannot try to rationalize their actions with logical or
moral behavioral standards. Those rules do not apply to them.

Members of the political class are often treated as if they have
achieved some special standing based on the positions they hold. But
remember, they hold their elected positions solely because they are good
at closing a sale, have a charming smile and can turn a phrase. They
are most often gregarious and outgoing and charming. They do not
necessarily have greater than average intelligence (see Joe Biden), but
they are good liars because they are emotionally shallow, have an
inflated sense of self-worth, are egotistical and lack empathy. In
short, most of them are psychopaths lacking any morality whatsoever.

The elites bankroll their campaigns and promise them lucrative seats
on boards of major corporations once they have used up their political
capital. In return, the elected class must sell their souls to the
moneyed elites and promise to do their bidding when it’s time to pass
new laws or begin new programs. They happily do this because power and
prestige are their primary motivators.

The elected class lose their political capital only when they grow
old and senile or transgress the bounds of normal decorum (i.e, get
caught in a sexual, financial or political scandal) so egregiously that
they become toxic or when the electorate becomes so agitated by their
continued lies and turnabouts that they come out en masse to vote
against them. Oftentimes, even this is overcome through voter fraud and
manipulation; but occasionally the bums are thrown out on their
collective ears. They then move on to their job-in-waiting and receive
six- and seven-figure salaries to continue hobnobbing with their old
buddies and to pass around more political graft in exchange for
legislation that benefits the companies they represent.

The immigration reform movement is case in point. Notice there is a
bipartisan movement to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. You might ask
yourself why this is. Why would a gang of eight Senators — and “gang” is
the operative word — with supposedly disparate political philosophies
band together to craft a bill that will destroy America and then go on
record as trying to get their 92 cohorts to pass it? Why would they also
try to sell it to the American people as being beneficial to the
country when common sense tells you that is not so?

The changing demographic resulting from giving voting rights to
millions (some same say as few as 10 million to as many as 30 million)
of collectivist-minded individuals — most of them from Third World
countries and who align with the Democrat Party’s stated socialist,
wealth-redistributionist policies — will destroy the Republican Party’s
chances of winning national elections for decades. It will also be the
final nail in the coffin of republicanism and will cement
socialist/fascism as America’s future. So why would Republicans agree to
such a thing?

The answer is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and businesses in
manufacturing, construction and food service and their lobbying
organizations. They are backing this bill because it will provide for
businesses millions of legitimate workers content with slave wages. And
as Pat Buchanan points out:
“U.S. corporations and agribusiness also want the right to import
foreign workers. And under this new immigration bill, H1-B visas for
highly skilled engineers and computer programmers will double to 110,000
a year, and the cap can rise to 180,000. Visas for H-2A agricultural
workers will go to 337,000 over three years.”

In addition to gaining millions of new prospective Democrat voters,
Democrats support granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens because
the labor unions do. Labor unions, the Democrat Party’s sugar daddy,
have seen their memberships decline and are desperate to find more
dues-paying workers to enslave. More dues is more money to prop up the
cushy lifestyles of the union’s leadership and to use to keep their
tickets to the White House policy-making sessions.

Obama has turned immigration policy over to the National Council of
La Raza. His director of the Domestic Policy Council and face of his
immigration policy is Cecilia Muñoz, a former lobbyist for La Raza.
And according to Chris Crane, the head of the National ICE Council, the
union representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, LaRaza agents
are embedded in ICE and setting their policies, many of which are now
prohibiting them from doing their jobs. The immigration bill also gives
unprecedented authority to the Department of Homeland Security Director,
Janet Napolitano. For his part, Obama believes ICE agents are terrorists.

La Raza is an Hispanic separatist/supremacist organization that has
advocated for blanket amnesty, open borders and the establishment of a
separate area or State in the southwest populated solely of Latinos
and free of Caucasians. The motto for La Raza, Spanish for “The Race,”
is “For the Race, everything, outside the Race… Nothing!”

According to the Heritage Foundation,
granting amnesty — which is the primary purpose of the bill, despite
protests to the contrary — to the estimated 11 million illegal aliens
will cost taxpayers at least $6.3 trillion.

Overall, the immigration bill accomplishes a much larger goal: the de
facto elimination of the southern boundary, a goal of the globalists.
The leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico have been working
toward eliminating North American borders for several years.

This is but one step toward one-world governance, a major goal of the elite world power brokers.

Once again, you might ask why American politicians would support such
a thing. They all believe they are entitled to and destined for prime
seats in the halls of power in the new world order. They are perfectly
content with that to the detriment of their own country and its
Constitution, which they swore to uphold.

Secure the Border? That's What the US Has Done

IN THE CLAMOR over immigration, the demand for more border security has been unrelenting.

Immigration restrictionists have dug in their heels, insisting that
stronger border controls must come before any other change. The Senate's
bipartisan Gang of Eight, bowing to political reality, is proposing an
immigration overhaul that creates a path to citizenship for illegal
immigrants living in the United States, but makes it contingent on a
series of border-focused security "triggers." The bill they introduced last month
is styled the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Modernization Act of 2013" – the order of those terms is not random –
yeta majority of Americans
doubts the government would actually secure the border if the law is
passed. Florida Senator Marco Rubio, one of the bill's sponsors,
publicly invited critics to suggest ways the security triggers could be made even tougher.

Immigration hardliners are determined to prevent a repeat of 1986,
the year President Ronald Reagan signed a landmark immigration law
offering amnesty – it wasn't a fighting word then – to about 2.7 million
illegal immigrants. Yet the massive border strengthening called for in
the law never materialized, critics say. So they've learned their
lesson: border security first.

But suppose that in the years since then we had undertaken a
massive effort to secure the Mexican border? What if, instead of largely
ignoring the rising pressure to crack down on migrants entering the
country illegally, Congress and the president had responded to it to
with a will?

There is no need to imagine. They did.

Contrary to popular mythology, the federal government has taken border security so seriously that it now spends more than $18 billion a year
on border and immigration enforcement – 15 times what it was spending
at the time the 1986 law was enacted. Washington now puts more money
into immigration control than intoall other federal criminal law-enforcement agencies
– including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret
Service, the US Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives – combined.

The US Border Patrol has been dramatically built up, with the number
of agents at the border having doubled over the past decade to more than
21,000. And in addition to "boots on the ground,"

America's border is
now being patrolled with radar stations, surveillance cameras, nearly
700 miles of steel fencing, and even Predator drones.

With our southern border quasi-militarized in this manner, the number
of aliens illegally crossing into the United States plummeted. From a
high of 1.6 million in 2000, Border Patrol apprehensions are now at
one-fifth that level, the lowest rate since the 1970s.

For all the complaints about insufficient enforcement, the feds are
now more pitiless about prosecuting immigration violators than ever
before – today a majority of all federal criminal prosecutions are immigration-related.
And illegal immigrants and criminals have been deported with such
growing aggressiveness in recent years, so much so that during President
Obama's first term, a record 1.5 million deportations were carried out.

Though you would never know it from all the hyperventilating and
ginned-up outrage, net migration across the southern US border has now fallen to zero – the number of Mexicans entering is now matched (or even exceeded) by the number leaving.

Border security, of course, is a perfectly sensible goal. An
impenetrable airtight Berlin Wall of a border is not. Mexico and the
United States are democratic friends and indispensable economic
partners, deeply linked by ties of family, history, and trade. As Shannon O'Neil of the Council on Foreign Relations notes, the border is legally
crossed every day by more than $1 billion worth of goods, 13,000
trucks, 1,000 railroad cars, and 400,000 people. It is mad to imagine
that such a busy and important frontier could be sealed so hermetically
that no one without legal papers can ever get across. It is even madder
to insist that intelligent immigration reform should be held hostage to
such an irrational goal.

The Pros and Cons of Amnesty

I’ve been peppered with all sorts of questions about immigration this
week. Many of them deal with the Heritage Foundation study, including
the “dynamic scoring” issue and Jason Richwine’s resignation.

I’m also getting asked about other aspects of this debate, ranging from
the desirability of a border fence to what I think about skills-based
immigration vs. family-reunification immigration.

The short answer to just about every question is that I don’t know.
I’ve never studied the issue and I’m not knowledgeable enough to give
competent answers. As I remarked in my one interview on the subject, I like immigration but want people coming to America for opportunity rather than welfare.

Not exactly bold stuff, I realize. Heck, everyone from John McCain to
Jeff Sessions presumably would be willing to publicly endorse those
sentiments.

But I don’t want to dodge the issue completely, and one reader posed a
question that got me thinking. She asked me to name the strongest
arguments for and against amnesty.

I won’t pretend that these are the strongest arguments, but I will tell you the arguments that I find most compelling.

The most compelling argument for amnesty is that it’s a
recognition of reality. Simply stated, the illegals are already here,
any kids born in the US already are citizens, and there’s no practical
way of getting any of them to leave. What’s the point of pretending
otherwise?

I realize that’s a very practical argument, which distinguishes me from
some fellow libertarians who make the moral case that people shouldn’t
be constrained by government-imposed borders. But that argument doesn’t
sweep me off my feet since it implies that everybody in the world has a
right to come to the United States.

The most compelling argument against amnesty is that
it will make America more statist. I’m not an expert on voting patterns,
but I think it’s safe to assume that immigrants will have below-average
incomes for the foreseeable future and that they generally will be
likely – once they get voting rights – to support politicians who want
to make America more like Europe. I’m 99.99 percent confident that this
thought has crossed Chuck Schumer’s mind.

Once
again, I realize I’m making a practical argument. And you can probably
tell that my real concern is with redistributionism and majoritarianism,
not immigration. But the bottom line is still the same. We desperately
need to scale back the welfare state and I fear amnesty will make that
an even bigger challenge.

But to close an a humorous note, perhaps this concern about amnesty can be allayed if we can encourage this type of emigration.

And since we’re sharing some humor, here’s a funny video about Americans sneaking into Peru.

Top Obama official’s brother is president of CBS News, may drop reporter over "aggressive" Benghazi coverage

From Jiahad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Sharyl Attkisson should know
the basic rule of American journalism: do not investigate scandals
perpetrated by Leftist presidents. Instead, cover them up. "Top Obama
official’s brother is president of CBS News, may drop reporter over
Benghazi coverage," by Patrick Howley in the Daily Caller, May 11 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

The brother of a top Obama administration official is also
the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from
dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the
administration’s scandals too aggressively.

CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their
own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama
administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya
since late last year.

“Network sources” told Politico Wednesday that CBS executives feel
Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy, and Attkisson
“can’t get some of her stories on the air.”

Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her
contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the
Benghazi talking points for more than five months.

“We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least
4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

But on Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points
went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White
House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the
talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a
terror attack.

That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy
national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president
David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in
September 2012

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency
equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to
undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote to his colleagues in the
Obama administration. “We thus will work through the talking points
tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Ben Rhodes, a 35-year old New York City native and former Giuliani
staffer who has worked for Obama since the president’s tenure in the
U.S. Senate, has established himself as a hawkish force on the Obama
foreign policy team, advocating for military intervention in Libya
during the president’s first term and reportedly advocating for
intervention in Syria, as well.

But despite his hawkish views, Rhodes identifies himself first and
foremost as a strategist and mouthpiece for the president’s agenda....

Mike Rogers: Expect More Benghazi Whistleblowers

A top Republican on Sunday said he expected more witnesses to
step forward with information about last year's deadly attack on a U.S.
mission in Benghazi and how President Barack Obama's administration
responded to the unfolding events.

"I do think we're going to see more whistle blowers. I certainly know
my committee has been contacted," Representative Mike Rogers, chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview on "Fox News
Sunday".
Last week, Republican charges that White House covered up details of
the Sept. 11, 2012 attack gathered more steam after former U.S. diplomat
Greg Hicks told lawmakers he believed more could have been done to stop
the assault by suspected Islamist militants.

Hicks, the second in command at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the
time, expressed his frustration in an emotionally charged congressional
hearing that a U.S. military jet and special forces were not sent to
help in Benghazi.

A report by ABC News provided additional momentum to the highly
partisan flap over whether the administration tried to avoid casting the
attack as terrorism at a time when the presidential election was less
than two months away.

ABC released 12 versions of the administration's "talking points" on
Benghazi that appeared to show how various agencies - particularly the
State Department and the CIA - shaped what became the Obama
administration's initial playbook for explaining how four Americans,
including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the
attack.

The report showed the final talking points went through a series of
revisions that scrubbed references to previous terror warnings,
including one regarding the potential threat from al Qaeda in Benghazi
and eastern Libya.

"I would call it a cover-up in the extent that there was willful
removal of information," Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican,
said on ABC's "This Week".

McCain called for a select congressional committee with a mandate to
interview "everybody,"
including former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, who has already testified before Congress on the matter and
accepted responsibility for the tragedy.

But McCain's call was brushed off by fellow Republican Representative
Darrell Issa, who chairs the House of Representatives Oversight and
Government committee that heard from Hicks last week.
"You know, let's not blow things out of proportion. This is a
failure, it needs to be investigated. Our committee can investigate,"
Issa said.

Issa said he would be sending a request on Monday to privately depose
two former U.S. officials that headed the Accountability Review Board,
which investigated the Benghazi attacks and issued a scathing report on
Dec. 18 that criticized security at the mission and leadership
"deficiencies".

Issa said he wanted to hear from Thomas Pickering, a former U.S.
ambassador in the Middle East, Russia and India, and retired Admiral
Michael Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, privately
"so we can get the facts in a nonpartisan way."

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, told ABC News there was no basis to Republican charges of a cover up.

The Obama administration has provided over 25,000 pieces of
documentation to Congress, which has already held 11 hearings on the
matter, Reed said.

Meanwhile, Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican who
served in Obama's Democratic administration, told CBS' "Face the Nation"
it would have been "very difficult, if not impossible" to rescue the
U.S. embassy officials and said he would have not have approved such an
operation.

"To send some small number of special forces or other troops in
without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat
is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going
on the ground, I think would have been very dangerous," Gates said.

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and
military forces" to think the United States could have mounted a rescue,
Gates said.

It would have been risky just to send in a military jet to try to
scare off the insurgents, "given the number of surface-to-air missiles"
on the loose in Libya, he said.

Cover-ups of the first degree. In fact, Senator Inhofe (R-OK) said
that Benghazi “is going to go down as most serious, most egregious
cover-up in American history.”

”We may be starting to use the I-word before too long” he added.

The thing is that the I-word is already being talked about but in the
case of Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Benghazi impeachment is NOT the way
to go.

In order to impeach a sitting president the House of Representatives
needs a simple majority vote, but to obtain a conviction in the Senate a
two-thirds majority (67 votes) is needed. Unfortunately, with the
current Democratic controlled Senate this is NOT likely to happen, so
the Republicans are looking forward to the 2014 elections to try to take
back the Senate.

But another year is too long to wait to avenge the MURDERS of
Ambassador Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and ex-Navy SEALS
Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Too long and with NO guarantee that the
Republicans will even take back control of the Senate for we all know
that Obama will ‘fix’ the mid-terms with voter fraud and
machine ‘irregularities’ just like he did in November.

After all, this time his neck is on the line…literally.

And even if he was by an outside chance impeached, impeachment gives
credibility to his presidency and all his misguided policies and laws
would still stay in place…something we surely do NOT want. Also,
remember that once charges are brought for impeachment and they fail in
the Senate, it’s over and cannot be brought back again.The simple fact is that Barack HUSSEIN Obama can and should be
arrested for treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution
which states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort…”Meaning in NO uncertain terms that the betrayal of the United States
of America by consciously and purposely
acting to aid her enemies is indeed grounds for treason.

And treason fits Obama to a tee for this man NOT only sends monies to our
enemies (like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas), but I believe that Barack HUSSEIN Obama was sending, without
Congressional approval, guns and weapons to Syrian rebels, rebels with
direct ties to al-Qaeda, got caught by Ambassador Stevens, who then had
to be silenced at all costs.

Benghazi…a cleverly crafted plan that used the fortunately timed
release of a ridiculous YouTube video as an opportunistic point
of blame and for a time…for eight long months…the masses bought into it as
the media covered for him…spreading his lies and covering-up the truth.

I’ll even go one step further and speak of a nagging feeling deep
inside that Barack HUSSEIN Obama might have set-up the entire Benghazi attack to
cover his butt, because if caught for illegal gun and weapons smuggling
that would indeed be grounds for immediate impeachment and arrest. And could it be even worse than that for dare I say it…I dare…but
could Obama himself have been behind the video…could he have ordered it
made for he knew he’d need a cover story...something he could blame if all hell broke loose…NOTHING would surprise me with this miserable excuse of a man.A video to blame, that is until the ‘whistleblowers' came forward with the truth and threw a wrench
into Obama’s cleverly crafted cover-up story…a cover-up that Hillary
Clinton knew about…was part of…and of her own free will went along with.

So my friends, impeachment is but a slap on the wrist and won’t do for
Barack HUSSEIN Obama or for Hillary Clinton for that matter. Arrest, try, convict, and sentence carried out
for treason, aiding and abetting the enemy, murder, and crimes against
America is the way to go.

And along with Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution there is a
possibly that the military could arrest Obama and bring him before a
military tribunal. A military tribunal is a military court designed to
try members of enemy forces during times of war. A definitive case can
be made that Barack HUSSEIN Obama, by his actions or should I say
deliberate lack of actions in regards to Benghazi, is a member of our
enemy’s forces.

And it’s also appropriate to subject a private citizen to a military
tribunal if that person is being tried for treason, which would be the
case with Hillary Clinton…a now private citizen who knew of the
gun-running…who covered it up…and who lied about it all thus aiding and
abetting the enemy.

Charges of treason against Barack HUSSEIN Obama can come in my guises, just a few of which are:

In 2009 when Obama accepting a foreign title and office while President without consulting Congress, he assumed
the Chairmanship of the UN Security Council, the international body responsible for declaring war on behalf of the UN, thus being in violation of US Constitution Article I, Section 9.

Benghazi.

Surrendering sovereign US war-making to foreign powers and
international authorities by attacking Libya without consulting
Congress, in violation of US Constitution Article 1, Section 8 (the War
Powers clause) and U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 33:1541-1548.

Benghazi.

His consistent and blatant pandering to America’s sworn enemies in
the muslim world is treason, the definition of which
according to the US Constitution, is the aiding and abetting of
America’s enemies. Remember, he is supplying arms, including F-16
fighter jets and Abrams tanks, to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood controlled
government and sends millions to Hamas and Hezzbolah (terrorist groups
with ties to al-Qaeda).

Benghazi.

Adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and
comfort, as witnessed by consorting with, supporting, and installing to
powerful Federal positions persons who in writing, word and deed have
called for and promoted the overthrow of America’s constitutionally
guaranteed Republic form of government, and the overthrow of the
United States Constitution; including but not limited to William Ayers,
Bernadette Dohrn, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Van Jones, Dalia Mogahed,
Harold Koh, and Eric Holder, in violation of US Constitution, Article
III, Section IV and U.S. Penal Code, Section 2385.

Benghazi.

Broke a law that he himself pushed and helped to pass as a Senator
that provides protection for Inspector-Generals who do their jobs by
investigating corruption, waste, and fraud in the federal government…as
in why was there NO protection for the 'whistleblowers' as demotions were
immediately placed against them for speaking out.

The list of crimes against America this man has
committed is endless. And with this current Congress sitting back and
doing NOTHING…with this Congress deliberately looking away at what
Barack HUSSEIN Obama has done are they actually accessories to
treason…just something to think about…just something to consider…just
something that must be dealt with now and NOT in 2014…for by
then the media will have locked its protective arms around their
‘savior’ even more than they already have.

NO…Benghazi must NOT be swept under the rug like Fast & Furious
was…Benghazi must be the end of the road for this man and his miserable
administration, because if it’s NOT the ‘blood on their hands’ might
very will spread to the streets of America.

EMAIL FOLLOWERS

Follow My Posts by Email

The Patriot Factor

I am an American Patriot...part of the grassroots movement of bloggers spreading the truth the media will not. I am also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on RSP Radio at: https://streamingv2.shoutcast.com/right-side-patriots